Indoctrinating a New Generation: "Think North American"

Originally posted by reD3vil
Can someone please explain to me what is wrong with learning to live together without borders, and without nationalities? We are all humans, we are
the same species.
...
"If we don't learn how to live together, we will die together."

Let me quote someone.

"Good fences make good neighbors."

Borders and nationalities exist because people have different values, beliefs and heritages.

A system of governance is set up based upon the common collective values, beliefs and heritages of the people in the area they govern. It is simple to
say we are all humans, but that is about as far as you can get in commonality of people. In fact, in some areas, some people have different viewpoints
on what is inherit to all humans. This is why women can't even drive in some countries, or why blacks were considered sub-human by some a couple of
centuries ago.

When people come to have the same values and beliefs, they naturally merge together anyway. It is the unnatural indoctrination into multinational
group think I am against. There is a negative ulterior motive when this happens.

I support the New World Order. I support the consolidation of Mankind.

A united North America is a greater North America.

I'm with you 100%

I support progression and unity.

I prefer the term "One World Government" - - as a legitimate and logical progression. I do not use the term NWO - - because of its conspiracy
connection.

I recently spend a day at the Griffith Observatory. You would think - - that people would understand just how insignificant we are in the whole
scheme of things - - - and bond together as a supportive world society.

And maybe I'm a bit dim, but I'm still not getting why this is such a terrible idea. I mean really, it doesn't seem to me that anything would
actually change, except some beefheads' chauvinism would be upset. Same crap, different bowl.

Wolf, what I've seen of you tells me you and I share absolutely nothing, except perhaps a common first language (and I'm certain our spoken dialects
of it are different). Culturally, we are very different. Ethnically, we are very different. religiously, we are very different. Politically, hoo boy
are we different. In fact, you and I probably have much more in common with people in Canada or Papua-New Guinea thanwe do with each other.

yet inexplicably, we're still both United States citizens.

If you want a fence, then I insist you live on whichever side is the crappiest.

State indoctrination toward any systemic or ideological goal represses the sovereign rights of the individual. It is up to parents to provide balance
to their children's educations, encourage their children to think for themselves and demand the end to tyrannical governments that want the right to
mold the mind of a child.

State indoctrination toward any systemic or ideological goal represses the sovereign rights of the individual. It is up to parents to provide balance
to their children's educations, encourage their children to think for themselves and demand the end to tyrannical governments that want the right to
mold the mind of a child.

Historically those are common misconceptions, although since the end of the Cold War the definitions are much more open to interpretation.
The history of the terms 1st, 2nd and 3rd Worlds only go back to 1952, and they are Cold War terminology:

In 1952, the French demographer Alfred Sauvy coined the term Third World in reference to the three estates in pre-revolutionary France.[16] The
first two estates being the nobility and clergy and everybody else comprising the third estate.[16] He compared the capitalist world (i.e. First
World) to the nobility and the communist world (i.e. Second World) to the clergy. Just as the third estate comprised everybody else, Sauvy called the
Third World all the countries that were not in this Cold War division, i.e. the unaligned and uninvolved states in the "East-West Conflict."[16][17]
With the coining of the term Third World directly, the first two groups came to be known as the "First World" and "Second World," respectively. Here
the three world system emerged.[14]

The "New Wold" was the Western hemisphere compared to Europe (the Old World, also sometimes including the mid-East and the "known world" before 1492).
However it was very much a colonial, pre-independence term (actually called "The Other World" by Columbus).

After 1952 the "First World" consisted of the capitalist and democratic countries.
Mainly the US, non-Communist Europe and other countries aligned with them (Canada, Australia and so forth).
The Second World consisted of the Communist Bloc in Europe, Asia, and those aligned to the USSR (e.g. Cuba).
The Third World were not clearly aligned (although there was often a lot of meddling from both the 1st and 2nd Worlds).
The Third World was increasingly associated with underdevelopment, although not all 1st and 2nd World countries were equally or greatly developed
either. A lot of this developmental discourse was to mediate and advance the influence of the US or USSR over these countries, by funding aid programs
and various militias and dictators.
Another term called "The Forth World" has since developed.
This refers to countries run by indigenous majorities, and also ethnic identities that run across imposed borders.

In SA we've debated long and hard about what we are.
Before 1994 white SA considered itself 1st World. It was capitalist, democratic and strongly aligned with the CIA and conservative forces in the US
and UK.
However, blacks could only vote in their "independent" homelands, so it was not equally democratic.
The black liberation forces were strongly aligned to Moscow and Cuba.
So it really was bit of everything.
The developmental label pretty much stuck to "Third World", and since the majority of our citizens are poor, I guess that's what we are now (although
there are insanely rich areas and people).
Similarly Australia and the US are classed "First World", although Native American or Aboriginal reservations are often described as "Third World".
However, had the ANC won during the Cold War, SA would have been "Second World" by 1994.
I guess some people lived in the 3rd World 1st class, and some lived in the 1st World 3rd class!
Of course the 2nd World never had any classes (wink, wink).

The North-South divide has been an attempt to delineate the most developed countries from the least developed without the influence of Cold War
terminology (although much of the South consists of former Third and Second World countries). Generally it runs according to the Brandt line, despite
some highly developed countries in the geographical South, and under-developed countries in the North.
Academically it refers more to an ideological space of disempowerment (the conceptual South) compared to the richest centers of power (the North).
According to the map on Wikipedia, Mexico is very much part of the South. en.wikipedia.org...
Hence I'm not sure whether "North America" only consists of the USA and Canada in the new terminology.

We do indeed have drastic differences. In fact, it is the nature of your difference that I blame in large for the devolution of the United States.
Your post have indicated you do not agree with or support the values the nation was founded upon. It is no wonder that you would agree with the idea
of indoctrinating youth into a multinational identity.

Thanks for the fence remark. I haven't had a typical liberal attack in a while. You know the kind where 'since you don't agree with me, you should
suffer' sort of thing. I'll go back to my 'crappiest' side of the fence. It's all inside America's border now anyway, as you intend.

We do indeed have drastic differences. In fact, it is the nature of your difference that I blame in large for the devolution of the United States.
Your post have indicated you do not agree with or support the values the nation was founded upon. It is no wonder that you would agree with the idea
of indoctrinating youth into a multinational identity.

Thanks for the fence remark. I haven't had a typical liberal attack in a while. You know the kind where 'since you don't agree with me, you should
suffer' sort of thing. I'll go back to my 'crappiest' side of the fence. It's all inside America's border now anyway, as you intend.

edit on 30-5-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

LOL it's his nature of differences that you blame for the devolution of the United States? First off, from what I understand his ancestors were in
the United States way before yours ever were. I never knew wanting to bring everyone together and to end hate was what really ruined you're Country?
No one ever said that you should suffer for your beliefs, in fact I see nothing but love coming from the opposing side and hate coming from yours.

Do you really feel that insignificant that if everyone was equal it would make you even more insignificant?

Originally posted by inanna1234
LOL it's his nature of differences that you blame for the devolution of the United States?

The difference between him and I are that I value freedom over a controlled state. Those that value control and force by the state over the people
have brought the US to the state it is.

I never knew wanting to bring everyone together and to end hate was what really ruined you're Country?

I didn't say that. Not sure where your getting that idea.

..., in fact I see nothing but love coming from the opposing side and hate coming from yours.

Love? of what exactly? I see love of the government handouts. What else? Love of the government dictating to people how to live their lives. Love of
economically supporting other nations before its own. Love of social conditioning.

I do have hate for the ideas and people destroying freedom, every minute of the day. I watched the love you talk about kill a free America and I hate
that. The nation is only on life support so that the government or those with the power can use the shell of a body to feed off of the people.

Do you really feel that insignificant that if everyone was equal it would make you even more insignificant?

I don't and wouldn't feel insignificant, but it sure as heck would be unnatural in every possible sense. Equality of money, possessions, ability etc
do not occur. It can not occur. Even in the utopian concept that so many conceive of, it must have someone of higher power forcing and equality among
the those under their control.

I am much more in favor of everyone getting and achieving what they earn. Then, those with excess can choose to help those without. Whenever someone
wants to force from one to another, freedom is lost.

Where do you equate everyone thinking of themselves as world citizens with welfare and social assistance? That's my main question? This is what
leaves me scratching my head? I fail to see your rationale?

You questioned my claim that TheWalkingFox's values and views are what led to the devolving of the US.

I explained his views and why I believe this.

We are all inhabitants of the world. Our differing values and beliefs inherently lead to separation. I'm not saying isolationism. Nations still
interact with one another. Many people of the world, believe that the government should be responsible for providing many of the basic needs for
people. Indoctrination into a multinational mindset, especially in North America, popularizes these ideas.

The world should be growing more towards free individuals not bound to the tit of government provided basic necessities, not towards more federal
dependents. This is why I am opposed to the multinational mentality.

State indoctrination toward any systemic or ideological goal represses the sovereign rights of the individual. It is up to parents to provide balance
to their children's educations, encourage their children to think for themselves and demand the end to tyrannical governments that want the right to
mold the mind of a child.

That is a great idealistic thought.

Now can we have some reality?

OK. Teach your children to be slaves! Help the state kill their minds.

Originally posted by Wolf321
We do indeed have drastic differences. In fact, it is the nature of your difference that I blame in large for the devolution of the United States.
Your post have indicated you do not agree with or support the values the nation was founded upon. It is no wonder that you would agree with the idea
of indoctrinating youth into a multinational identity.

And there's another thing; I think you and I have sweeping, vast differences of opinion on just what those "founding values" actually were.
Mine are based off historical fact, and yours are based off nationalist mythology. nevertheless, we still manage to make up the same country, don't
we? My whole thrust is that your basis for the foundation of a nation is inherently false. Granted, perhaps the united States is a bit of an extreme
in terms of intra-national diversity, but I guarantee you there are no nations in the world that are culturally, politically, or ideologically
homogenous. Somehow they manage to be countries just the same.

This is what makes this quote from you especially hilarious;

The difference between him and I are that I value freedom over a controlled state. Those that value control and force by the state over the
people have brought the US to the state it is.

In fact, you do not value freedom. You're the one espousing control, by the assertion that every nation's inhabitants can only be one way,
homogenous. Anyone else - me for example - is a problem that, presumably, must be "dealt with."

As for the current state of the United States, I think that, if you bothered putting even a smidge of research into it, you'll find that this is
largely do to the financial deregulations pushed for by people who were absolutely certain that "caveat emptor" is just Latin for "liberty and justice
for all," paired with a series of war by people who operated under the delusion that the best way to show you've still "got it" is to crush
third-world nations.

Thanks for the fence remark. I haven't had a typical liberal attack in a while. You know the kind where 'since you don't agree with me, you
should suffer' sort of thing. I'll go back to my 'crappiest' side of the fence. It's all inside America's border now anyway, as you intend.

edit on 30-5-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

Oh, you misunderstand! It's not because we disagree. It's just that I dislike you. I find you to be a very dislikable person, in addition to
how utterly disagreeable you are. So if we ever see your dream of severing thispatch of turf up into homogenized little enclaves reach fruition, it's
only natural that I'll want Oregon and the Atlantic Seaboard, and stick you with Louisiana and Texas.

There, doesn't it make you feel better that the envelope wasn't addressed to "current resident?" Made your day, I'll bet.

Moving on to your next post...

Originally posted by Wolf321
Love? of what exactly? I see love of the government handouts. What else? Love of the government dictating to people how to live their lives. Love of
economically supporting other nations before its own. Love of social conditioning.

So if I read this right.. .you're against "government handouts" but for the government giving economic support to Americans ahead of
other nations. You're against governments dictating people's lives, but for enforced uniformity of opinion, culture, etc. You're
against social conditioning, but are undoubtedly one of its most successful studies.

Could it be that you're just a terribly confused person whose political and philosophical outlook amoutns to nothing more than a stream of
poorly-understood and vacuous catch-phrases?

I do have hate for the ideas and people destroying freedom, every minute of the day. I watched the love you talk about kill a free America and
I hate that. The nation is only on life support so that the government or those with the power can use the shell of a body to feed off of the people.

Remember what i just said about "caveat emptor"? Now perhaps you don't agree with that phrase being hte foundation of our system of government, as it
currently is. But I can tell you it's certainly not people like myself who made it that way. it actually runs counter to the moral outlook we hold.
I'm sorry of, by virtue of how easily deluded you are, that someone else has led you about by the nose, but it wasn't us.

I don't and wouldn't feel insignificant, but it sure as heck would be unnatural in every possible sense. Equality of money, possessions,
ability etc do not occur. It can not occur. Even in the utopian concept that so many conceive of, it must have someone of higher power forcing and
equality among the those under their control.

Food refrigeration and treatment for infectious diseases are also unnatural in every possible sense. I think you'd be willing to agree that, while
they both have their downsides, the pros outweigh the cons involved for these doubtlessly unnatural things? Denouncing something as "unnatural" isn't
a very good argument - especially when you're doing so indoors from a computer.

Aside from that, what you've got here is a classic straw man. In anyone else, I'd assume it to be intentional duplicity, but for you, I'll grant that
you probably just don't have a clue what in the world you are talking about. So. While you are correct that total economic equality can never happen
(I pick up a shiny rock, I now have "more" than people who are devoid of shiny rocks) nobody has ever argued that it CAN.

I'm not interested in some utopian pie-in-the-sky about total equality. I'm much more grounded; I just want to reduce inequalities. See, Wolf,
many of our veterans are currently homeless. Meanwhile Dubya lands fifteen million for a speaking gig. The children of the poor struggle for a basic
education, while the children of the wealthy struggle for their own TV Reality shows. Under our current system, the rich get richer and the poor get
poorer; which only makes sense, I suppose, since poor people can't afford to run for office, and since poor people can't buy the people who do.

I am much more in favor of everyone getting and achieving what they earn. Then, those with excess can choose to help those without. Whenever
someone wants to force from one to another, freedom is lost.

So is your belief that freedom should only be a consideration for "those with excess," then? because that's exactly where this elitist train of
thought leads. If you are poor, you are not free. Poverty and liberty are diametrically opposed. Compounding this problem is that poverty, like
wealth, is inherited. I sincerely doubt that when you speak of achievement being earned, you're speaking in favor of ending the practice of
inheritance, after all.

Those with power do not willingly cede that power to those with none. That is, never in the history of man has poverty been alleviated by the
generosity of the wealthy, but always - always by forced mandate against the wealthy, whether by the rulers of the land (such as the old
practice of jubilee years or the more modern progressive taxation) or by the poor themselves (as was the case in the French and the Russian
revolutions)

You can't blather platitudes about how equality is "unnatural" and then spout this garbage about how the wealthy will, from the goodness of their
heart, give and give and give, just so long as there's no dirty government making them give. 'Cause it doesn't work like that.

State indoctrination toward any systemic or ideological goal represses the sovereign rights of the individual. It is up to parents to provide balance
to their children's educations, encourage their children to think for themselves and demand the end to tyrannical governments that want the right to
mold the mind of a child.

That is a great idealistic thought.

Now can we have some reality?

OK. Teach your children to be slaves! Help the state kill their minds.

Humans have existed in their current state - that is, "modern" H. sapiens with art, culture, language, society - for about thirty thousand
years. Can you point to any time or place in these three hundred centuries of human existence where a group of humans has been around each other
without there being a system of government? Because in any group larger than one, someone is going to be "dominant." it's one of the perils of
being a tribal species. We're apes, not cats.

And every single one of those governments failed. Humans love to set up hierarchical structures that corrupt and attempt to shape the life of the
individual. Eventually all such structures become overbloated with self-pride of the leaders.

Show me the systemic structure that has not waged war, not created a slave class.

The Waterboys - The ways of men

Well I've had enough of the ways of men
said I've had enough of the ways of men
Yes, I've had enough of the ways of men
his sordid games rape my brain

Well, I've had enough of his tomfoolery and shame
yes, I've had enough of his tomfoolery and his shame
Oooh, I've had just enough of his tom-tom foolery and his shame
his sordid games rape my brain

As the wind sweeps across generations up and down the sweep of history
he leaves his tracks in all places, leaves his stain in all beds
He builds schools and pleasures, all designed to prevent illumination
all of his games rape my brain

He put his flag in the desert, but I need water
he put his flag in the desert, but I need water
He put his flag in the desert, but I need water
he put his flag in the desert, but I need water, water, water

Actually the Moriori of the Chatham Islands are often regarded as a culture without violence and dominance.
Their case is often used against pacifism as a complete moral imperative. en.wikipedia.org...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.